Below:

Next story in Science

In the publish-or-perish world of academia, the pressure can be
intense for scientists to get their work out in front of peers
and to secure more funding for further research — so much so
that, well, let's just say mistakes can happen.

Some mistakes are innocent, such as an accidental mislabeling of
data or images that leads the researchers to an erroneous
conclusion. Other mistakes reflect
a serious lapse in ethics or common sense.

Mistakes often result in
a scientific retraction, a public removal of the flawed paper
from publication. A private, U.S.-based blog called Retraction Watch keeps track of
such retractions, which seem to be on the rise these days. Below
are five of the more curious retractions from 2013, culled from
more than 100 listed on the Retraction Watch blog.

Their paper, published in 2011 in the German journal Der
Anaesthesist, looked quite similar to an earlier paper, "General
anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic
cholecystectomy," published by Brazilian scientists in the
Brazilian journal Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia.

How similar? Well, looking at the text of the papers, the
Brazilians had "68 patients with symptoms of cholelithiasis," and
the Chinese had "68 patients with symptoms of cholelithiasis."
The Brazilians split this group to be "under general anesthesia
(n = 33) or spinal anesthesia (n = 35)," and the Chinese split
this group to be "under general anesthesia (n = 33) or spinal
anesthesia (n = 35)." The Brazilians found that "pain was
significantly lower at 2, 4, and 6 hours after the procedure
under spinal anesthesia," and the Chinese found that "pain at 2,
4, and 6 h after the procedure under spinal anesthesia was
significantly lower."

Yes, they get a B for effort for at least trying to shift the
verb position on that last one.

As you might imagine, the Chinese reached the same conclusion as
the Brazilians, having obtained the same result from the same
procedure with the same numbers. Der Anaesthesist retracted the
paper in November 2013 "because it is identical with the
publication" by the aforementioned Brazilian team, according to
the retraction notice.

And to think, scientists usually enjoy having their results
replicated.

4. Are we not our own peers?

Bahram Mokhtari is highly fond of the work of Kobra Pourabdollah.
And Kobra Pourabdollah is highly fond of the work of Bahram
Mokhtari. Their mutual admiration is so great the two Iranian
chemists decided to peer review the very same papers they
co-authored. [ Mad
Genius: 10 Odd Tales About Famous Scientists ]

As you might have guessed, they were quite supportive of their
own work and wholeheartedly recommended their own work for
publication with no changes. But now they've been caught … at
least four times. Retraction notices from journal editors note a
"lack of reviewer objectivity." That's scientific-journal-speak
for "We was fooled."

To date, the duo has had 11 papers retracted. The other retracted
papers can boast only of run-of-the-mill
scientific naughtiness, such as publishing the same work in
different journals, a form of self-plagiarism. But hey, when you
do your own peer review, reusing your own work over and over
again only seems natural.

As crazy as their scheme might sound, they are mere amateurs
compared with
Hyung-In Moon, a Korean scientist who holds the record at 28
papers retracted for self-peer-review, a story which came to
light in 2012.

3. May I help you verify my falsified data?

The journal Nature retracted a paper in July 2013, because the
results presented couldn't be reproduced. That wouldn't have made
a blip on the retraction radar if it weren't for two unusual
elements: The paper dates way back to 1994; and the lead author,
Karel Bezouška, went as far as breaking into another lab to, uh,
help that group reproduce his data. [ Beauty
and Brains: Award-Winning Medical Images ]

The paper in question was titled "Oligosaccharide ligands for
NKR-P1 protein activate NK cells and cytotoxicity." Although the
title might sound esoteric, the paper was cited more than 250
times. Several authors on the report, including the senior
author, had wanted to retract the paper for years after they
couldn't reproduce the results. But Nature's policy at the time
required that all the authors agree to a formal retraction.
Bezouška wouldn't sign.

The journal Nature changed its stance, though, after a negative
ruling earlier this year from the Institute of Microbiology and
from Charles University, both in Prague, where Bezouška was
employed. It seems that Bezouška was caught on camera at night
breaking into a lab where scientists were trying to reproduce his
results. He proceeded to manipulate samples in the refrigerator
with the likelihood of making sure the lab finally got the
"right" results.

An English translation of a press release written in Czech
concerning the investigation states that Bezouška "most likely
repeatedly committed
scientific misconduct." He has since been dismissed from both
institutions.

2. I'm not a doctor, but I play one in the
journals

The Journal of Patient Safety retracted a paper this year even
though, upon careful review, the work seemed correct, if not
stellar. The paper was titled "Understanding Interdisciplinary
Healthcare Teams: Using Simulation Design Processes From the Air
Carrier Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) to Identify and
Train Critical Teamwork Skills," with lead author William Hamman,
M.D., Ph.D.

The only problem was that Hamman doesn't have an M.D. or Ph.D. An
expert in "using simulation" indeed, Hamman dropped out of
medical school years ago and had been faking his degrees for
at least 15 years.

Until his ruse was uncovered, Hamman had shared millions of
dollars of grants and had appointments at hospitals and
universities. He very well may be brilliant. But rules are rules,
and misrepresentation can be dangerous.

Expect many more retractions to come in 2014.

1. Didn't make sense the first, second, third or fourth
time it was published, either

One has to wonder how this one slipped past the goalie, at least
four times. The journal DNA and Cell Biology retracted a paper
titled "DNA and Cell Resonance: Magnetic Waves Enable Cell
Communication" by independent German scientist Konstantin Meyl.

"DNA generates a longitudinal wave that propagates in the
direction of the magnetic field vector. Computed frequencies from
the structure of DNA agree with those of the predicted biophoton
radiation. …The vortex model of the magnetic scalar wave not only
covers many observed structures within the nucleus perfectly, but
also explains the hyperboloid channels in the matrix when two
cells communicate with each other."

Still with me? According to an expert critical of the work,
quoted on Retraction Watch, the same physics applies to
telepathy, telekinesis and
the human aura.

Meyl reportedly has published nearly identical work in three
other journals, a clear violation of publication rules.
Retraction Watch stated that yet another paper by Meyl, in the
Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling, would be retracted
soon, primarily for duplication.

Sadly, the publication of such work under the auspices of peer
review only provides ammunition to charlatans who evoke words
such as "vibrational energy" and "quantum healing," and who claim
to heal through touch, thought, or other methods of fringe
physics.

Follow Christopher Wanjek @wanjek for daily tweets on
health and science with a humorous edge. Wanjek is the author of
"Food at Work" and "Bad Medicine." His column, Bad Medicine,
appears regularly on LiveScience.